Coach requests a timeout
 

Team A coach requests a timeout to question a correctable error. Coach is out of timeouts and he is proven wrong on his question. Is coach A charged with a technical foul or do u just play on? If possible please reference a rule. Thanks in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Coach requests a timeout
 

Interesting theoretical question.

Practically speaking, most coaches don't even know they have this tool at their disposal. CE situations are most often realized when a light bulb goes on over the head of the scorer or an official (or a coach yells to either which causes said light bulb to go on), and then the scorer or the official initiate the inquiry which renders moot the timeout issue.

I doubt I'll ever have to charge a coach a TO for a failed CE inquiry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's no such thing as a coach's challenge in basketball. If you want to stop play in order to check on a correctable error that's fine, but if a team is out of timeouts you don't give them one... for anything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rule 5 gives the coach the right to challenge a correctable error.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this just your personal philosophy?

10.1.7

Stopping play to check on a CE is different than granting a timeout, then not charging it if the challenge is correct.

If a team is out of timeouts you don't grant them one.

The problem is the whole "time out" thing. Leave that out and we're fine.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I don't have my rules book handy, but I'm assuming that says something along the lines of "Grant the timeout and assess a technical foul"?

Correct. I don't know what all this other chatter is. If a coach goes to the scorer's table to correct an error and he is wrong, a time-out is charged (not granted). If he is out of time-outs it is an excessive time-out and adjudicate as such.

I'm not saying I'm right, but where is this "coaches challenge" type thing you're talking about?

If a coach wants to check on a rule that's fine, but that's not the same as a time out being charged based on whether he was right or not.

10.1.7 only refers to a tech being charged for requesting an excess timeout. Nothing about it relating to a CE or other rule question by a coach.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Bryan, forget the CE aspect of things for a second.

You keep saying things like, "If a team is out of timeouts, don't grant them one."

Where are you coming up with that? It has no basis.

As for how to handle the OP, BadNewsRef explained it perfectly.

There correct answer to your question is as follows:

1) The Rules (NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's) allows Team A's HC to leave Team A's Bench Area to confer with Table Personnel to request a TO with regard to a possible CE (or AP Arrow mistake).

2) Upon being notified of A-HC's request, the Game Officials (GOs) will instruct the Timer to start timing a TO: i) if Team A has any Full TOs the Timer will start timing a Full TO; or ii) if Team A has only Thirty-Second TOs left the Timer will start timing a Thirty-Second TO; or if Team A has no TOs left then the Timer will start timing a Full TO.

3) If there is a CE and it is discovered before the CE time limit has expired, the CE is corrected and Team A is not charged with a TO and the game is resumed immediately.

4a) If there is a CE and it is discovered after the CE time limit has expired, the CE cannot be corrected, and Team A is charged with a TO.

4b) If there is no CE, Team A is charged with a TO.

If 4a or 4b occurs and there is time remaining in the TO, Team A is entitled to the remaining time in the TO based upon whether the TO is either (i), (ii), or (iii).

If 4a or 4b occurs and there is no time remaining in the TO, and the game is resumed immediately.

If (iii) occurs in either 4a or 4b Team A is charged with an excess TO. And the game is resumed with Team B shooting FTs as the result of the TF due to Team A's excess TO.

The applicable NFHS Rules are: R2-S10; R5-S8-A4; and R10-S5-A1c.

MTD, Sr.

It is a good thing you aren't saying you are right, because you are not right. Perhaps you should spend a little more time in the rule book before making such bold statements.

Have you ever read the whole CE section of the rule book?

Incorrect on both counts. They can challenge. And you give a team as many timeouts as they ask for...10, 15, 20. There is no limit. However, everyone above 5 comes at the expense of a technical foul. Even so, they get it.

look at 5-8-4 and 5-11-4 through six or so i think. the coach is allowed to make an "appeal" to the official at table. other coach allowed to be present.

It would be great if some people could just answer a question without being an ass about it.

You make coming here SO much better.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Dead wrong. :(

Guys! Guys!! Yes, Bryan got the interpretation wrong. BUT!! I do not like the phrase "coach's challenge) because that phrase or the word "challenge" is not used in the Rules Book.

The Rules allow the HC to request Table Personnel to notify the GOs that a CE has been made. There is nothing in the rules that allows a "coach's challenge".

MTD, Sr.

5-8-4 The "appeal'...shall be made at table.....

Thank you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

And for the record, I'm not all knowing. I'm fully aware that I will make mistakes. If some people around here could be a little less abrasive that would be great. This isn't reddit or the comment section of YouTube.

Am I wrong that we, as colleagues, should show more support for one another, rather than act like this is a contest on who is knowledgeable and who isn't?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Support for one another also includes not telling a whole bunch of veteran officials they are wrong about a rule.

I never said anyone was wrong. I wrongly answered a question, misunderstood some replies (without getting personal) , then admitted I may be wrong. But I never came out and said anything like you're "dead wrong" or "you obviously didn't read the whole rule", etc.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I don't see a 5.11.4. I do see a 5-11-4. And, yes, it makes a difference. And, it's the FED notation -- see the Foreword to the case book.

Finally, while I might (or might not) have found a different way to express it, I agree with the sentiment expressed by johnny and badnewsref in this thread.

OK. I was the ass. My apologies. I do feel some people can be abrasive, but apparently this time it was me in the wrong.

And I always forget which is dashes and which is periods.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

The OP did not say "coach's challenge," that was Bryan's wording when he said it's not allowed.

I never mentioned the OP, but I was referring to what Bryan had said.

MTD, Sr.

"Case in point"
 

"Case in Point" might be helpful in reminding you that periods . . . Refer to the Case Book.

I'm not arguing anyone is right but I do agree that a lot of what I have read on the board, usually from veterans, can come off as condescending. My point would be that officials enough crap on the floor, why have it fly the same on an officials forum?


I wish I had a cool signature

There are a lot of officials that are way too sensitive and anything you tell them they cannot get over. This is a forum where we cannot easily write our tone or show you our expressions. There are a lot of officials that want to make everything we talk about personal, when it is simply about the information. But welcome to social media. It has been like this from the very beginning BTW. Another year, another dollar.

Peace

Keeps us prepared!.......? ;):cool:

Tone is very hard to discern on the InterWebs as Jeff pointed out. I'm always going to be pretty matter of fact, occasionally tinged with a bit of sarcasm. I'm also a proponent of making the questioner (in any type of learning situation) reflect for themselves on possible solutions, or to at least justify the answer they've already given.

Also, I was mentored by guys who would say "WTF are you doing?" or "WTH would you do that?" or "Don't do s**t to f' up the game" or "You didn't think I could handle that play on my own". I didn't come up in a touchy/feely crowd. Oh yeah, plus I spent 22 years in the military after being raised by someone who spent 26 years in the military.

I learned about Verbal Judo here and my eyes practice it all the time.

Reminds me of wreck ball. The players are so bored with their opponent they turn on me for entertainment.

Here people are so bored they turn on their own kind for entertainment. You have to practice dodging these people and enjoy the people who help you be a better ref. Really practicing Verbal Judo here makes you a better referee. Dont let them mess with you. Just picture a monkey male basketball player and calming T his sorry ass.

In my first game of the season Friday night, my crew chief was of those hard a$$ camp evaluators I work in front of every off-season. His personality as a crew chief was totally different. He was positive, encouraging, and confident in our abilities from the pre-game preparations all the way through to the post-game locker room recap. In our pre-game he even acknowledged his camp observer personality and that he not like that outside of the camp environment.

Thank you and all others for serving.

Are your feelings hurt? Do you need a safe space?

And just for the record, 5-11-6 states "Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each, as in 10-7-1." (underlining is mine....)

Bottom line, as Camron Rust posted earlier, is the coach can have as many extra time-outs as they want - at the expense of a technical foul for each......and by rule the official doesn't have a choice - they shall grant them.